But I would never have expected that I should one day see this same thing in print. In today's New Paper, there's an article which purports to be humorous and this sentence caught my eye:
I'll simplify the sentence for clarity - you may ignore the bit about wearing Crocs. It's totally unrelated to the article and it was presumably inserted by the writer as his feeble attempt at humour. The sense of the sentence is preserved if I reduce it to this: "The prison was where I was sent". It is obvious that like the woman with her toddler in the play school, the writer of this article left out the preposition "to". The natural question is why did he leave it out?
Sir Winston Churchill on the English language
At first blush, I thought the writer was averse to ending a clause with a preposition. But that's something that countless grammarians from Fowler onwards have denounced as ridiculous. The story is told that Winston Churchill was so infuriated with a subordinate who tried hard not to end his sentences with a preposition in a report that Churchill wrote in the margin of the report, "This is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put".
Of course there are instances when the preposition may be dropped. Some direct objects may have a locative role. A good example is "The policeman walked the streets". The preposition "through" may in such an instance be dispensed with. The same with "The horse jumped the fence". "Over" is left out. But notice that you can't do it in the passive voice.
Upon further reading, it will become clear to the reader that the writer of the article is just one of those who would drop their prepositions at the drop of a hat. Here is another excerpt from his article:
The sentence now takes on a ludicrous meaning that the writer did not intend. It tells me conclusively that the writer really has an allergy for prepositions and it has nothing to do with the all too common but misconceived fear of ending a sentence with a preposition.